Ohio Supreme Court Justice William M. O'Neill formally has acknowledged his "inadvertent" failure to disclose several debts on his financial-disclosure forms.

Randy Ludlow, The Columbus Dispatch

Ohio Supreme Court Justice William M. O’Neill formally has acknowledged his “inadvertent” failure to disclose several debts on his financial-disclosure forms.

The Democrat and the court’s junior justice filed paperwork last week with court officials listing four debts that he failed to report on financial-disclosure forms he filed as a justice and appellate court judge.

The Dispatch reported on May 17 that O’Neill failed to disclose a still-valid court-issued default judgment for $1,364 dating from 2004 and did not report two other judgment liens totaling $2,983 before they were paid in the early 2000s.

O’Neill also listed a fourth unreported debt to Ford Motor Credit in 2001-02 before its payment and wrote that he also failed to disclose his receipt of Social Security income in 2012 and 2013.

The justice also filed a financial-disclosure statement for 2007, the year he retired from the appellate bench, after The Dispatch discovered it had not been filed.

O’Neill filed the paperwork with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which handles judges’ and justices’ disclosure forms.

“I welcomed your earlier story. I made sure I crossed the T’s and dotted the I’s,” O’Neill said yesterday. “If there is a question, you should fix whatever needs to be fixed.”

The Dispatch also reported that O’Neill has faced more than $60,000 in federal and state tax liens since 1992 and currently is paying off a $16,088 state-tax lien.

O’Neill chalked up his tax and reporting troubles to a bad financial streak, a disputed debt and a lack of record-keeping, calling his mistakes unintentional.

Knowingly filing a false disclosure statement is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, removal from public office and potential disciplinary action against a law license.

After an anonymous complaint, O’Neill said he expects a three-judge panel of appellate judges to determine whether he might have violated the judicial code of conduct.

If probable cause of misconduct is found, a special “prosecutor” would be appointed and other appellate judges would hear the complaint against O’Neill and issue any punishment.

The normal disciplinary process for lawyers and judges cannot be used for justices, because of conflicts. The Supreme Court appoints the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and approves the appointment of the “prosecutor” — the disciplinary counsel. The court also approves proposed punishments.